Court of Appeals Affirms Alternate Medical Care Award for Physical Therapy in Claimant's Home State
In Annett Holdings v. Roland, No. 15-0043 (Iowa App. Feb. 10, 2016), the Court of Appeals upheld a decision of the agency awarding claimant physical therapy in his home state of Alabama rather than the physical therapy that had been offered in Des Moines. When claimant had begun work for Annett Holdings, he signed a "memorandum of understanding" indicating that as a condition of employment, he agreed to temporarily relocate to Des Moines for the purposes of performing modified work if he were injured on the job. Claimant had an elbow injury, and surgery in Alabama, following which he was taken off work and referred for physical therapy, which originally occurred in Alabama.
When claimant was released to light duty work, he was temporarily relocated to a Des Moines hotel, where physical therapy was performed. Claimant filed for alternate medical care and the agency concluded that treatment provided 897 miles from claimant's residence was unreasonable and unduly inconvenient. The deputy concluded that the "memorandum of understanding" was inconsistent with section 85.18 of the Iowa Code. The district court affirmed, finding that without the memorandum of understanding, the employer could not compel claimant to travel to Des Moines for treatment.
On appeal, the employer contended that the action of the agency was not supported by substantial evidence. The employer also argued that the agency erred in reaching the conclusion that the memorandum of understanding was inconsistent with Iowa law. The employer argued that consideration of the memorandum was not a proper consideration for the agency in an alternate medical care proceeding.
The court affirms on the substantial evidence issue, finding treatment was inconvenient, was inferior and interfered with the use of a "cooling machine" prescribed by claimant's treating physician. The court noted that the physical therapy in Des Moines was decidedly inferior to the physical therapy in Alabama, and the agency's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court also rejects the employer's argument that the agency wrongfully considered the memorandum of understanding. According to the court, by relying on the memorandum to justify the care in Iowa, the employer put into issue the legal validity of the memorandum. The court affirms the decision of the district court finding that the memorandum, in the circumstances presented, violated section 85.18 of the Code.
It would seem almost certain that an application for further review will be filed with the Supreme Court in this case, as it raises issues that were left unsettled in other cases involving truckers, treatment and healing period benefits. The memorandum was developed in light of Neal v. Annett Holdings and this case presents the first appellate challenge to the use of the memorandum.
When claimant was released to light duty work, he was temporarily relocated to a Des Moines hotel, where physical therapy was performed. Claimant filed for alternate medical care and the agency concluded that treatment provided 897 miles from claimant's residence was unreasonable and unduly inconvenient. The deputy concluded that the "memorandum of understanding" was inconsistent with section 85.18 of the Iowa Code. The district court affirmed, finding that without the memorandum of understanding, the employer could not compel claimant to travel to Des Moines for treatment.
On appeal, the employer contended that the action of the agency was not supported by substantial evidence. The employer also argued that the agency erred in reaching the conclusion that the memorandum of understanding was inconsistent with Iowa law. The employer argued that consideration of the memorandum was not a proper consideration for the agency in an alternate medical care proceeding.
The court affirms on the substantial evidence issue, finding treatment was inconvenient, was inferior and interfered with the use of a "cooling machine" prescribed by claimant's treating physician. The court noted that the physical therapy in Des Moines was decidedly inferior to the physical therapy in Alabama, and the agency's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court also rejects the employer's argument that the agency wrongfully considered the memorandum of understanding. According to the court, by relying on the memorandum to justify the care in Iowa, the employer put into issue the legal validity of the memorandum. The court affirms the decision of the district court finding that the memorandum, in the circumstances presented, violated section 85.18 of the Code.
It would seem almost certain that an application for further review will be filed with the Supreme Court in this case, as it raises issues that were left unsettled in other cases involving truckers, treatment and healing period benefits. The memorandum was developed in light of Neal v. Annett Holdings and this case presents the first appellate challenge to the use of the memorandum.
Comments
Post a Comment